Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Unpopular opinion - I'm pro gun; try to convince me why I shouldn't be. Watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rabbit2)
    I have lived in 14 countries. In each of them it was just as easy as here to acquire a weapon. You buy them down in an alley, usually from the same people that you buy your illegal drugs from. Nobody with an ounce of intelligence would think that drug dealers, and those doing 'drive by's' would got to a gun shop, and fill out paperwork to buy a weapon legally. They're already convicted felons. Just filling out the paperwork [with the intent to buy a weapon] is ANOTHER felony, and would land them back in jail. Why in the world would they do that/??

    One of me mates here in the cybercafe' is from Honduras. He has told me that in his country, if you see a car travelling on the road after dark, it is 99.95 likely that at least the driver has a handgun. It's almost as likely that one or more passengers has one too. He says that the incidence of road robberies is fairly low as a result - as nobody wants to be shot trying to rob an armed motorist. A gal from Mexico here, has told me nearly the same thing. Now, i don't think that 90% of the cars on the road here [D.C. area] at night have an armed driver. It might be 40%, but i don't think higher than that. The problem is, here, having a weapon in the car is considered 'carrying concealed', if it is accessible to the driver. If they pull a traffic stop, and find that, you are convicted of carrying concealed without a permit. That is usually a felony, and THEN you CANNOT get a permit. For that reason, people with a problem - a gail with an abusive BF or Ex, normally go get a permit, so they can carry legally. I don't know what the situation is in Honduras or Mexico. Next time i see one of them, i'll ask.
    I'm really failing to see what point you're trying to make this any of this.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Economics Legend)
    All of the recent terror attacks in the UK could have been prevented if a brave man had drawn his firearm and shot.

    There is no argument in favour of restricting gun ownership. Only libtard cucks who hate personal freedom and love big government oppose gun ownership.
    Oh yeah like all those cases where people have done that in America during mass shootings. Oh Wait...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rabbit2)
    I have lived in 14 countries. In each of them it was just as easy as here to acquire a weapon. You buy them down in an alley, usually from the same people that you buy your illegal drugs from. Nobody with an ounce of intelligence would think that drug dealers, and those doing 'drive by's' would got to a gun shop, and fill out paperwork to buy a weapon legally. They're already convicted felons. Just filling out the paperwork [with the intent to buy a weapon] is ANOTHER felony, and would land them back in jail. Why in the world would they do that/??

    One of me mates here in the cybercafe' is from Honduras. He has told me that in his country, if you see a car travelling on the road after dark, it is 99.95 likely that at least the driver has a handgun. It's almost as likely that one or more passengers has one too. He says that the incidence of road robberies is fairly low as a result - as nobody wants to be shot trying to rob an armed motorist. A gal from Mexico here, has told me nearly the same thing. Now, i don't think that 90% of the cars on the road here [D.C. area] at night have an armed driver. It might be 40%, but i don't think higher than that. The problem is, here, having a weapon in the car is considered 'carrying concealed', if it is accessible to the driver. If they pull a traffic stop, and find that, you are convicted of carrying concealed without a permit. That is usually a felony, and THEN you CANNOT get a permit. For that reason, people with a problem - a gail with an abusive BF or Ex, normally go get a permit, so they can carry legally. I don't know what the situation is in Honduras or Mexico. Next time i see one of them, i'll ask.
    Cool story bruh
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    I'm really failing to see what point you're trying to make this any of this.
    Your initial premise that guns are more easily available in the US than anywhere else is a LIE!! Get it now?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rabbit2)
    Your initial premise that guns are more easily available in the US than anywhere else is a LIE!! Get it now?
    They're more easily available in the USA than they are in places like the UK with stricter gun control, I never said than anywhere else... The examples you use of Honduras and Mexico are, no offence to the people who live there, not the most lawful of places, so seem like an odd comparison. Especially considering you claim to get a gun there you have to go to some dodgy back ally. In the USA you just have to get lucky at a garage/car boot sale or pop along to one of the many gun shows. Many, many perfectly law abiding citizens won't know what to ask for/bother when selling you a gun.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ganjaweed Rebel)
    We live in a tiny island nation where it's reasonably easy to secure our borders and where everything is so closely bunched together the police can arrive at the scene of any crime within an acceptable time frame. In the USA they have a leaky southern border and even with Trump's hypothetical wall, it will not prevent the flow of firearms just as it won't prevent the flow of people or the flow of drugs. Whilst I agree there is very little reason for Brits to own guns, the belief that a ban on guns could prevent their flow or the corresponding crime associated therewith is completely delusional and shows an entirely Eurocentric understanding of the world.
    If I called the police the second somone broke into my house they could easily kill,hurt or steal from me and my family. Unless the police have teleportation then you are wrong
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonymous_1947)
    It is rather sad to see that most liberals portray pro-gun activists as heartless thugs who don't care about the lives of people in any country. That couldn't be further away from the truth; no matter what side of the political spectrum you are, I think we all care about the lives of innocent people. But I feel that the left are more ill-informed on the issue.

    Stricter gun control WILL NOT help. Prove to me otherwise.

    (Let's keep this debate civil).
    Having guns means that going to Laser Quaser is less original and less fun, and therefore it is in our interests for the government to ban it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    About the only thing gun control doesn't appear to have an impact on is the suicide rate. If someone wants to go down that route then access (or lack thereof) to a weapon doesn't seem to make a big difference, so there's no argument to make for or against gun law in this regard.
    Unless you are involved in finding the body or cleaning up after the event.
    And there are the cases where suicide shootings have resulted in the accidental shooting of others,including fatalities.
    And the situations where people decide to take other people with them. Pretty difficult if you are using hanging or drugs.

    So yes, there are arguments for gun contraol in regard to suicide.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Economics Legend)
    All of the recent terror attacks in the UK could have been prevented if a brave man had drawn his firearm and shot.
    So why didn't that work in Las Vegas, or Orlando, oe San Bernadino, or the hundreds of other occasions where someone with a gun has killed multiple victims without a single "brave man with a firearm" stopping them?

    There is no argument in favour of restricting gun ownership. Only libtard cucks who hate personal freedom and love big government oppose gun ownership.
    So, your argument is that guns should be more easily available in the UK because
    1. that would reduce terrorist attacks, and
    2. because when the government try to take over the country, you can turn back the tanks and drones with your hunting rifle and handgun.

    As usual, the gun lobby demonstrates why it is immune to reason.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonymous_1947)
    It is rather sad to see that most liberals portray pro-gun activists as heartless thugs who don't care about the lives of people in any country. That couldn't be further away from the truth; no matter what side of the political spectrum you are, I think we all care about the lives of innocent people. But I feel that the left are more ill-informed on the issue.

    Stricter gun control WILL NOT help. Prove to me otherwise.

    (Let's keep this debate civil).
    First, explain why you are pro-gun.

    Second, are you against restrictions and controls on everything else?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonymous_1947)
    But wouldn't you agree that guns act as an effective deterrence when in a problematic situation?
    No. All the evidence shows that Americans who own guns are around four times as likely to be shot as Americans who don't own guns.

    You talk about suicides? Yes in the USA for example, there is a huge problem in regards to this issue. Approximately 56% of suicides in the USA is carried out by a firearm. However as tragic as it may be, if one wants to commit suicide, unfortunately, they will inevitably find other ways to take their own life.
    Someone handing themself can't accidentally hang someone else as well.
    Someone taking an overdose can't make a dozen other people take an overdose first.

    Furthermore, only 9% of firearms owned there is because of the threat of burglary or threat, and not to sound rather impertinent, but so what?
    Wrong. A Pew survey this year found that 67% of US gun owners own a gun for protection.
    Also, your first claim was that they are an effective means of protection.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Unless you are involved in finding the body or cleaning up after the event.
    And there are the cases where suicide shootings have resulted in the accidental shooting of others,including fatalities.
    I guess I should've gone with the term suicide prevention?

    (Original post by QE2)
    And the situations where people decide to take other people with them. Pretty difficult if you are using hanging or drugs.
    This is true, but we already know that fewer guns means fewer homicides.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonymous_1947)
    Hypothetical situations my won't change my mind
    Why not?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonymous_1947)
    Here we go again, emotional scaremongering at its very best. Of course, I care about children's lives; I care about all innocent lives! But stricter gun control isn't going to stop our children from getting killed.
    We don't really need stricter gun controls in the UK. It is the US that is really the issue - and it is not a hypothetical that many US children are killed by guns.

    And that musket argument has been rebutted numerous times; just look at political commentator Steven Crowder's video on it, where actual facts are stated.
    So you are saying that any law from the past necessarily took into account all future advances in technology? lol!
    It is utterly ridiculous to claim that the conditions which led to the 2nd amend are the same as they are today. They weren't even the same as they were when the Constitution was written a few years earlier FFS! That's why they felt they had to amend it!!!
    Jeez. Arguing with gun nuts is just like arguing with religionists.

    Also, it is fallacious to argue that people in the past could forsee technological advancements in the future. This is especially ironic regarding the gun lobby, who are often also Christian creationists. One of their arguments for creation is that we will never; a) discover the origin of the univers and b) descover the origin of life on earth. Their fundamental claim is that science and technology have reached their limit. Yet at the same time, this argument claims that men in the 18th century accepted that the future held things that were not possible at the time!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    They kill people
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonymous_1947)
    Maybe we need them from a threat from a tyrannical government and given this current political climate, that doesn't sound too far-fetched.
    This is possibly the biggest nonsense argument of them all!
    First, who decides if a government is "tyrannical" or not? And by what means?
    If the majority of US citizens voted for, and congress/senate enacted the repeal of the 2nd Amend and an absolute and immediate ban on weapons and the government attempted to enforce this, gun owners would no doubt see this as the action of a "tyrannical government", despite it being entirely constitutional and democratic.

    Is a government without popular support which engages in campaign of misinformation, divisive rhetoric, subterfuge, restriction of the press and the scapegoating of certain groups the signs of a tyrannical government? And yet that government is supported by those very people who claim thay need guns to oppose it! The Trump administration is the most "tyrannical" in decades, but the gun lobby fully support it. Explain that.

    Level of training? If you have ever purchased a gun, you would know the regulations that you would have to undergo to get your hands on one.
    Not in the US.
    Remember that the UK does not need more gun control. Your arguments are only relevant to the US.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rabbit2)
    According to the Independent [Uk newspaper], the Burglary rate for the Uk is 1,157.7 per 100k, whilst the US is 714.4. This is nearly double.
    You have forgotten to include "larceny theft" which is around 3 times the rate of burglary. There is no equivalent offence in the UK, all such offences coming under the category of "burglary".
    When you compare like with like, the US rate of robbery from within private property is much higher than in the UK.

    Many interviews with convicted criminals have revealed that the criminals would avoid robbing or burgling someone that they thought MIGHT be armed. There therefore is a 'halo' effect from gun owners.
    And yet these gun owners are 4 times more likely to be shot than their non-gun owning neighbours.
    Small price to pay for a reduction in the risk of being robbed, I guess (although that reduced risk is not actually real but just dishonest manipulation of the statistics)

    13,000 homicides and 27,000 woundings are irrelevant when we consider the possible savings on insurance payouts for TVs and broken windows. Go USA! (Actually, that's a bit unfair. The majority of US citizens favour stricter gun controls)

    If 20% or 30% of the customers of a given store are armed, the protection extends to many of the other customers,
    You seem to be forgetting that in countries with strict gun controls, there is no need for the general public to be armed to save themselves from gun-toting criminals.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Do you care more about robberies or deaths?
    The fact that a good proportion of gun homicides are gang related or involve those of the lowest socio-economic status and ethnic minorities, the answer is sadly often "robberies".

    I think some of them regard the level of gun deaths as some form of natural (and welcome) population thinning.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ganjaweed Rebel)
    We live in a tiny island nation where it's reasonably easy to secure our borders and where everything is so closely bunched together the police can arrive at the scene of any crime within an acceptable time frame. In the USA they have a leaky southern border and even with Trump's hypothetical wall, it will not prevent the flow of firearms just as it won't prevent the flow of people or the flow of drugs. Whilst I agree there is very little reason for Brits to own guns, the belief that a ban on guns could prevent their flow or the corresponding crime associated therewith is completely delusional and shows an entirely Eurocentric understanding of the world.
    Finland has a "leaky border" with Russia, (where guns are possibly even easier to aquire than in the US). It also has a low population density. It's firearm homicide rate is similar to the UK's and much lower than the US. Likewise Ukraine. And what about Turkey? Its gun homicide rate is less than a third that of the US. Large areas, isolated communities, leaky borders with Iran, Iraq and Syria. So what could the difference be? Oh yes. Strict gun controls! Whoda thunk it?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonymous_1947)
    Have you seen the knife rate over here per capita compared to the USA? Why can't we get to the root of the problem instead of having stricter gun control.
    You are 1.27 times more likely to be stabbed in the UK than in the US.
    You are 35 times more likely to be shot dead, over 4 times more likely to be murdered, and 7 times more likely to be assulted with injury in the US than in the UK.
    What was your point again?

    People who commit these terrible atrocities in regards to mass shootings tend to either been impacted by mental illness, or have submitted to some toxic ideology, for e.g. Radical Islam.
    Is restricting the access of such people to firearms a good idea or a bad idea?

    People who tend to commit these atrocities are already criminals anyway,
    Not before they go on the rampage. Most of the US's worst mass killings were committed by people with no, or only minor criminal records.

    so criminalising the use of guns in the way that America does now won't make much of a difference at all.
    All the arguments used against strict gun controls in the US were used by the gun lobby in Australia in 1996, after the port Arthur massacre. The government went ahead and introduced strict controls and a compulsory buyback of existing guns anyway. Since then not one mass shooting and a drop in the murder rate. Even people who were vociferous opponents of the new laws at the time now admit that their arguments were flawed and based on emotion and self-interest rather than any logic or the need to deal with a problem.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.